Re: A Two-Round Proof of Work instead of PoW

Where is the energy saving here, when the miner will have lower electricity bills, but there will be more miners?
And the statements that Bitcoin "waste" energy (and consequently imply that something needs to be done about it) haven't been debunked many times?

The energy saving comes from the fact that most of miners will spend their time on Round 1 that is not heavy-energy / CPU consuming.
At least this is the target, the bet and the hope.

In your system, consuming more electricity in round 1 gives a miner a better chance of going to round 2. How will your system limit the amount of electricity consumed in round 1?

The complexity in Round 1 is supposed to be small. ...

Please explain how a lower complexity reduces the amount of energy used when miners are encouraged to increase energy usage in order to be one of the first N2 miners. Whether it takes 1000000 tries on average or 10¹⁸ tries on average, miners are going to use as much energy as they can in order to be first.

Yes but Round one is only let's say 2min for the sake of argument. Once this 2min is over Only N2 miners will advance to Round 2 to work on the second puzzle. Let's assume Round 2 calculation time is 6min. We have N1 miners working for 2min and N2 miners working for (2+6)=8min. In Bitcoin we have all N1 working all 8min. We save energy on Round 2.